Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the side-effect scope: it allocates a fresh 24-char hex `appId`, does not create tokens/rooms/bot, and returns the app object. It also documents auth requirements (B2B mode + `b2bToken`) and specific error codes (401/403, 422), giving the agent a clear behavioral contract.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers scope exclusions, return value, auth, errors, and related tools in just a few sentences. No information is redundant or unnecessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a simple one-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it does not do, what it returns, auth prerequisites, error conditions, and related alternatives. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents `displayName`. The description adds only marginal value by mentioning '422 invalid displayName' but does not provide additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Create a new Ethora app (tenant) server-side using B2B auth') and differentiates it from the similarly named `ethora-app-create` by identifying it as the partner/integrator equivalent. It also narrows the scope by explicitly listing what it does NOT do ('does not create tokens, rooms, or a bot'), making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: when operating in B2B mode, and it names the direct alternative `ethora-app-create` for the non-B2B path. It also points to `ethora-b2b-app-bootstrap-ai` / `ethora-b2b-app-provision` for an all-in-one flow, so an agent can decide between this minimal creation step and a more comprehensive operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.